On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 09:55, Tom Meunier wrote:
> Scot L. Harris wrote:
>
> >
> >In the last 24 hours only had 8 spam messages get through greylisting.
> >And some of those I believe are actually commercial mailing lists
> >someone signed up for and no longer want. In comparison I was receiving
> >3000 to 6000 spam messages a day.
> >
> >Again thanks for all who provided advice on this.
> >
> >
> The thing that scares me about greylisting is that the CEO's stockbroker
> might be running Groupwise 1.0 or Exchange 4.0 or BillyBob's Very Good
> Mailserver 2003 which may not handle the retry smoothly.
>
> I guess that falls into the old RBL debate about whether collateral
> damage is acceptable.
That is a legitimate concern. It is also why I have continued to
monitor things very carefully looking for any indication that ham is
being blocked or dropped. Probably in a another week if there are no
indications of any missing email then I will relax.
I did take the step of identifying known email servers and whitelisted
those up front. Have added a handful since this was implemented. So
the collateral damage can be minimized by scanning valid email and
generating a whitelist prior to implementation. That combined with a
much shorter delay period should minimize any potential problem while
still gaining virtually all of the benefits.
Of course now I am faced with not having a steady supply of spam to feed
to spamassassin. But some how I think I can live with that problem. :)
--
Scot L. Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lots of people drink from the wrong bottle sometimes.
-- Edith Keeler, "The City on the Edge of Forever",
stardate unknown
